Untitled topic • Hacker News Board

Re: undefined

#91

Post by ahoyhere » Sun, Mar 29, 2009, 8:21 PM UTC

sho wrote: post #70

ahoyhere wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

sho, you downvoted me, but do you see what I mean now? Maybe I didn't lay it out as clearly as you did. But my personal theory is he just posts this stuff to stir up shit, and see if he can convince some other marginalized guys to swing to his worldview, rather than any kind of actual question he wants answered. Every time the topic comes up (or he brings it up), he goes on and on about how American women are worthle…

I upvoted you on your next comment. Of course I agree with your sentiments (in this instance), I just don't like the use of labels in general. Nothing personal. Even so, I don't think "sexist" and "mysogynist" really cover it. It's more just general confusion and misguided thinking, the women-related stuff just seems like a sort of byproduct or artefact. I won't speculate on reasons, I'm not a psychologist. Anyway, y…

I didn't recommend banning him, I recommended that people pay attention to what they are upvoting.

Re: undefined

#92

Post by ahoyhere » Sun, Mar 29, 2009, 8:23 PM UTC

time_management wrote: post #85

boris wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't sit down one day with a check list and decide that since this person has X, Y, and Z, I am going to marry him/her. Rather, you marry despite absence of X, Y, and Z.

Perhaps, but some issues are more important than others, and moral character is a big one. A person's sexual history is evidence of that person's character (or lack thereof). It's the one area of life where people are easily pushed to do awful things to themselves and each other. Seriously, do you want to marry someone who might cheat because your dick is not as wide as that of a hookup who happened to show up at the…

> Seriously, do you want to marry someone who might cheat because your dick is not as wide as that of a hookup who happened to show up at the college reunion?

Why are you so afraid of women?

Re: undefined

#93

Post by ahoyhere » Sun, Mar 29, 2009, 8:25 PM UTC

petercooper wrote: post #77

endtime wrote: post #31

in my observation, quality women are pretty much universally opposed to casual sex I'm not advocating anything here, but have you really found that to be true? I've known plenty of people of both genders who aren't exactly chaste, and I wouldn't consider them low quality people.

Logical fallacy. That's not what the quote you used states. The quote states that "people with quality X tend to not do Y." This does not automatically mean "people without quality X always do Y."

No, it's not a logical fallacy. time_management has said over and over again that quality women do not do X. Not that women who have the quality of chasteness do not do X.

Re: undefined

#94

Post by manvsmachine » Sun, Mar 29, 2009, 8:26 PM UTC

cperciva wrote: post #73

ShardPhoenix wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I'm following this metaphor anymore.

I wasn't being metaphorical -- I was just commenting about TCP.

It actually made sense when I read it. Hitting a "rough spot" in a relationship can be a draining experience and end up negatively affecting other parts of your life if you're not careful.

Re: undefined

#95

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Mar 29, 2009, 8:28 PM UTC

time_management wrote: post #85

boris wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't sit down one day with a check list and decide that since this person has X, Y, and Z, I am going to marry him/her. Rather, you marry despite absence of X, Y, and Z.

Perhaps, but some issues are more important than others, and moral character is a big one. A person's sexual history is evidence of that person's character (or lack thereof). It's the one area of life where people are easily pushed to do awful things to themselves and each other. Seriously, do you want to marry someone who might cheat because your dick is not as wide as that of a hookup who happened to show up at the…

[deleted]

Re: undefined

#96

Post by time_management » Sun, Mar 29, 2009, 8:32 PM UTC

sho wrote: post #90

time_management wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not going to reply to most of this, but a couple points stick out. I would love to hear why you think sex is "deviant". It seems natural and healthy to me; after all, we were all born with the equipment built right in. I think casual sex is deviant, not sex as a whole. The "equipment" may be "built right in", but its purpose is not to be used lightly and indiscriminately. After all, it can make babies. Look aroun…

"I'm not going to reply to most of this" Because you can't? "The "equipment" may be "built right in", but its purpose is not to be used lightly and indiscriminately." This is just your opinion. You offer nothing to back it up. "Look around at the sorts of people who have a lot of casual sex. Do you seriously want them to be highly represented in humanity's genetic future" Yes? Of course? Why ever not? They are humans…

Because you can't?

No, because it would be tiring and pointless, and I'm never going to convince you that you're wrong anyway.

The two words are practically synonyms. One gains skill through experience. Again, go try and get a job and use that line.

Quality of experience matters a lot more than quantity. Having had sex with 10 or more different people does not make a person good in bed. In fact, it probably means that he or she sucks for two reasons. 1. People who can get meet their sexual goals easily have no incentive to learn how to do anything right. 2. If he were talented at all, he'd probably be able to find something more fulfilling, which would mean more long-term relationships and less time to rack up a number.

Re: undefined

#97

Post by sho » Sun, Mar 29, 2009, 8:33 PM UTC

ahoyhere wrote: post #91

sho wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I upvoted you on your next comment. Of course I agree with your sentiments (in this instance), I just don't like the use of labels in general. Nothing personal. Even so, I don't think "sexist" and "mysogynist" really cover it. It's more just general confusion and misguided thinking, the women-related stuff just seems like a sort of byproduct or artefact. I won't speculate on reasons, I'm not a psychologist. Anyway, y…

I didn't recommend banning him, I recommended that people pay attention to what they are upvoting.

I'm not calling for anyone to be banned. But don't worry too much about a few numbers on a website; it doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things.

Re: undefined

#98

Post by michaelkeenan » Sun, Mar 29, 2009, 8:40 PM UTC

time_management wrote: post #85

boris wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't sit down one day with a check list and decide that since this person has X, Y, and Z, I am going to marry him/her. Rather, you marry despite absence of X, Y, and Z.

Perhaps, but some issues are more important than others, and moral character is a big one. A person's sexual history is evidence of that person's character (or lack thereof). It's the one area of life where people are easily pushed to do awful things to themselves and each other. Seriously, do you want to marry someone who might cheat because your dick is not as wide as that of a hookup who happened to show up at the…

Perhaps, but some issues are more important than others, and moral character is a big one. A person's sexual history is evidence of that person's character (or lack thereof). It's the one area of life where people are easily pushed to do awful things to themselves and each other.

How did you reach this strange conclusion? It seems to me that a person's sexual activities are completely orthogonal to their moral character (excluding non-consensual stuff of course). Sex is a wonderful thing to do with someone, not an awful thing.

Seriously, do you want to marry someone who might cheat because your dick is not as wide as that of a hookup who happened to show up at the college reunion?

What does that have to do with anything? It seems to me that being monogamous has more to do with keeping a promise than not being tempted. I suggest you find someone who will keep their promises in the face of temptation, not someone who won't be tempted at all.

Do you want your teenage daughters to be raised by a woman who dated the football team, and to learn about respecting themselves from such a person?

Some people take the view that sex is fun, and having fun is good for you. Respecting yourself might involve having sex, not repressing your natural desire.

Is sex with a woman special if it used to be available to any guy with a six-pack and a nice car?

Just because a person has a lot of sex doesn't mean they didn't find quality partners.

If a person gets into the habit of casual sex when young, that person's almost certain to cheat in a long-term relationship, even if the relationship is otherwise going well. It's not a habit that people break easily.

Citation needed!

Re: undefined

#99

Post by jhancock » Sun, Mar 29, 2009, 8:45 PM UTC

time_management wrote: post #85

boris wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't sit down one day with a check list and decide that since this person has X, Y, and Z, I am going to marry him/her. Rather, you marry despite absence of X, Y, and Z.

Perhaps, but some issues are more important than others, and moral character is a big one. A person's sexual history is evidence of that person's character (or lack thereof). It's the one area of life where people are easily pushed to do awful things to themselves and each other. Seriously, do you want to marry someone who might cheat because your dick is not as wide as that of a hookup who happened to show up at the…

These are tough topics. I'm not sure you will find answers here as each has to find comfort on these issues within themselves.

You clearly feel that sexual history is highly correlated to moral character. This is a common position. Its not that you may be wrong (neither position can be proven) but more importantly if that's how you "feel" then you know what kind of woman to exclude from your search. Its great to find a "nice girl" and live happily ever after. Please be careful though to not brand people as immoral simply because their past is different than yours. Its better to simply talk about "compatible" instead of moral. Character judgment like this is a slippery slope.

From my perspective, I do not find a strong correlation between "sexual history" and "morality". I do find a strong correlation between "sexual history" and "sexual 'fitness'". This doesn't make me correct. Its my perspective and I don't project moral character with it.

Bringing up the topic of sexual history with a woman is generally a huge turnoff. When you do so, you are clearly judging her and telling her she must fit some predetermined notion of what you, a man, thinks a woman's place is in the world. It doesn't matter if you actual think you think so. Its what most women hear when you bring up this topic.

Additionally, I have found that many men that feel as you do have internal feelings of sexual inadequacy and/or "control issues" and in turn project these feelings into a moral dilemma on others. My only training on this matter is from living my own life and having to grow out of some of these issues myself. To put is bluntly, this is the common story of the geek who didn't get laid in high school and has evolved a blanket of morality around the reasons why.

Re: undefined

#100

Post by time_management » Sun, Mar 29, 2009, 8:46 PM UTC

ahoyhere wrote: post #92

time_management wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps, but some issues are more important than others, and moral character is a big one. A person's sexual history is evidence of that person's character (or lack thereof). It's the one area of life where people are easily pushed to do awful things to themselves and each other. Seriously, do you want to marry someone who might cheat because your dick is not as wide as that of a hookup who happened to show up at the…

> Seriously, do you want to marry someone who might cheat because your dick is not as wide as that of a hookup who happened to show up at the college reunion? Why are you so afraid of women?

Why do you think I'm "afraid of women"?

The fact is that, if a woman's had a lot of casual sex, she's developed a taste for variety and you have no hope of being her ideal man. When you're in bed with her, she's wishing you had Biff's abs, Jethro's penis girth, and the "roughness" of that club promoter whose name she's forgotten. So she's likely to cheat after a while in search of those traits, and even if she doesn't go off and do it, she's going to be mentally cheating all the time by fantasizing.

I'm a guy of mostly above-average physical traits and skill, but it's humanly impossible for any man to be the best at everything, for every woman. I don't have, for example, a 10-inch dick that's 5 inches wide, and I wouldn't really want one, to be honest; I'm more than happy with what God gave me. But that's what it takes to please a woman who's had 20 partners, because she's taken a lot of huge dicks and is "stretched out".

A woman who's been with too many guys is always going to be missing that one thing that some other guy did or had, and nobody wants to be with a woman who's going to be constantly fantasizing about other men.